Karnataka High Court
WP/16216/2022 of M/S BRANTESH ASSOSIATES Vs CANARA BANK on 21 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010372802022 NC: 2026:KHC:51855 WP No. 16216 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 16216 OF 2022 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: M/S. BRANTESH ASSOSIATES DASAPPA NILAYA
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 16216 OF 2022 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
M/S. BRANTESH ASSOSIATES
DASAPPA NILAYA
7TH CROSS, 3RD STAGE,
1ST CROSS, VINOBANAGARA
SHVAMOGGA - 577 214,
BY ITS PARTNERS
SRI. BASAVARAJA G
S/O HALESHAPPA, 38 YEARS
MAIN ROAD, BANNURU
SHIVAMOGGA DIST. - 577 214.
SRI. HALESHAPPA G,
S/O HALAPPA, 66 YEARS
BANNURU VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI - 577 214
SHIKARIPURA TQ,
SHIVAMOGGA DIST.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYANNA G.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
CANARA BANK
VINOBANAGARA BRANCH,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204,
Digitally signed
by ASHWINI
MAYAPPA
MAVARAKAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
2.
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
UNDER SARFAESI ACT,
CANARA BANK,
VINOBANAGARA BRANCH,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204.
…RESPONDENTS
(R1 - CANARA BANK, BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER - SERVED; R2 - THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNDER SARFAESI ACT
CANARA BANK, SHIVAMOGGA - SERVED)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED
DEMAND
NOTICE
DTD.
26.8.2021
IS
AT
ANNEXURE-B CONSEQUENTIALLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED
POSSESSION NOTICE DTD. 12.8.2022 IS AT ANNEXURE-C
BOTH ARE ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Captioned writ petition is filed by the defaulting borrower calling in question the demand notice and the consequential possession notice issued by the respondent-Secured Creditor under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
HC-KAR
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act’).
2. It is a settled position that the writ jurisdiction of this Court is not ordinarily invoked to interdict the measures initiated by a secured creditor under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, particularly at the instance of a defaulting borrower, when an efficacious statutory remedy is available. Nevertheless, accepting the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court had granted an indulgence and stalled further proceedings vide order dated 18.08.2022, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- in three instalments.
3. It is rather unfortunate that, despite the said order having been passed as far back as on 18.08.2022, the petitioner has not deposited even a single rupee towards the amount stipulated by this Court. The conditional indulgence granted by this Court has, therefore, remained wholly unavailed of. Such conduct clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has failed to honour the undertaking implicit in the order and has sought to continue the proceedings without
HC-KAR
complying with the condition subject to which the protection was granted. The continuation of the present proceedings, in these circumstances, amounts to an abuse of the process of this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that he has no instructions from his clients. In view of the aforesaid conduct, this is undoubtedly a fit case for imposition of exemplary costs. However, taking a lenient view, this Court refrains from imposing costs.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition, being not maintainable and devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4